It's rare to see Google continuing service for a non-paying customer. Usually, we see stories of them randomly banning people along with their digital livelihoods with no meaningful appeal process.
It's in Google's best interest to maintain continued service for GCP customers since any disruption makes both the customer and Google look bad, regardless of who is at fault. Google likely cares very much about Twitter's users, while Twitter might care more about what services they can lose, potentially at the expense of their users.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18886804
Here's another case where Google kept charging for a service they failed to deliver and refused to refund that stolen money:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19956090
Both cause harm to people's livelihoods, but they went on anyways. It's very different from the attitude they're showing towards Twitter.
The second case sounds like an intention to discontinue service, and seem to be a different failure mode not quite related to the current article.
BTW in the first case, Google looks bad because they are. Payment issues are common, and should never ever result in people losing their digital livelihoods. Bans should have a meaningful appeal process. Users should be able to reach human employees that has the power to actually resolve issues. There's no excuse for getting so many basic things wrong here given the consequences.
Your framing of the second case is plainly wrong too. It's theft by Google. You can't discontinue a service you never received. The author moved to prevent further theft only after Google explicitly refused to do what was right.